↓ Skip to main content

A Retrospective Assessment of a Failed Collaborative Process in Conservation

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Management, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
11 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
Title
A Retrospective Assessment of a Failed Collaborative Process in Conservation
Published in
Environmental Management, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00267-018-1045-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Heidi E. Kretser, Jon P. Beckmann, Joel Berger

Abstract

Collaboration provides one tool for managing the complicated and often the contentious natural resource issues. Successful collaborative arrangements involve a mix of actors bringing key attributes to the table: power, capacity, motivation, mandate, and synergy. These attributes, if missing or if one overshadows the rest, can derail the collaborative process and/or the conservation outcomes. We offer a case study of natural gas field development impacts on America's only endemic ungulate-pronghorn (Antilocapra americana)-winter range in the Upper Green River Basin (UGRB), Wyoming, USA. We illustrate how a collaborative process can go awry, given asymmetries between the relative strengths and the associated attributes of actors, and the subsequent extent to which this imbalance created an unfavorable situation for continued collaboration. The case study reveals disagreements on technical data and potential insight on agency capture operating at a local scale. Despite these process challenges, some conservation outcomes resulted from work generated by the collaboration. Our experience underscores the importance of defining a clear purpose for collaborative processes at the outset, articulating specific roles, ensuring transparency among actors, and flexibility for long-term management as possible ways, in which the groups involved in collaborations to manage natural resources can complement each other's strengths and strive for better conservation outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 16%
Researcher 6 12%
Professor 3 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 13 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 20%
Environmental Science 8 16%
Social Sciences 8 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 15 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 January 2022.
All research outputs
#3,242,255
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Management
#218
of 1,914 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,539
of 340,550 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Management
#9
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,914 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 340,550 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.